Advanced manufacturing technology (AMT); Cross-efficiency; Data envelopment analysis (DEA); Efficiency; Robot selection; Advanced manufacturing technologies; Advanced manufacturing technologies selections; Advanced manufacturing technology; Data envelopment analyse; Decision makers; Multi tasks; Production process; Repetitive task; Theoretical Computer Science; Computer Science Applications; Management Science and Operations Research
Abstract :
[en] Advanced manufacturing technologies (AMTs) are more and more used by firms to perform repetitive tasks in the production processes. As opting for an ATM represents an important investment for firms, several methodologies have been suggested to help firm decision-makers selecting the best one. A popular concept in that context is the cross-efficiency technique. In short, it endogenously selects the best ATM by computing scores using linear programmings. In this paper, we extend the cross-efficiency technique by adding a new feature: we model ATMs as multi-task processes. The multi-task approach presents two main advantages. One, it naturally gives the option to allocate inputs/costs and indicators/attributes to every task, yielding to a more realist modelling of the AMT processes. Two, AMTs can be compared for every task separately, increasing the discriminatory power of the selection process. As a consequence, the overall performances can be better understood, and, in particular, the reasons for declaring a specific AMT to be best can be investigated. We demonstrate the usefulness of our approach by considering a numerical example and two applications. In each case, we demonstrate the practical and managerial usefulness of our approach.
Disciplines :
Production, distribution & supply chain management
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.
Bibliography
A. Charnes, W.W. Cooper and E. Rhodes, Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2 (1978) 429-444.
J.R. Doyle and R.H. Green, Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: Derivations, meanings and uses. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 45 (1994) 567-578.
P. Ghandforoush, P.Y. Huang and B.W. Taylor, A multi-criteria decision model for the selection of a computerized manufacturing control system. Int. J. Prod. Res. 23 (1985) 117-128.
M.M. Imany and R.J. Schlesinger, Decision models for robot selection: A comparison of ordinary least squares and linear goal programming methods. Decis. Sci. 20 (1989) 40-53.
K.V. Sambasivarao and S.G. Deshmukh, A decision support system for selection and justification of advanced manufacturing technologies. Prod. Plan. Control 8 (1997) 270-284.
C. Parkan and M.L. Wu, Decision-making and performance measurement models with applications to robot selection. Comput. Ind. Eng. 36 (1999) 503-523.
C. Parkan and M.L. Wu, Comparison of three modern multicriteria decision-making tools. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 31 (2000) 497-517.
M. Braglia and R. Gabbrielli, Dimensional analysis for investment selection in industrial robots. Int. J. Prod. Res. 38 (2000) 4843-4848.
E.E. Karsak, Distance-based fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating flexible manufacturing system alternatives. Int. J. Prod. Res. 40 (2002) 3167-3181.
E.E. Karsak and S.S. Ahiska, Practical common weight multi-criteria decision-making approach with an improved discriminating power for technology selection. Int. J. Prod. Res. 43 (2005) 1537-1554.
E.E. Karsak and S.S. Ahiska, Improved common weight MCDM model for technology selection. Int. J. Prod. Res. 46 (2008) 6933-6944.
G.R. Amin and A. Emrouznejad, A note on DEA models in technology selection: An improvement of Karsak and Ahiskas approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45 (2007) 2313-2316.
R. Folgado, P. Pecas and E. Henriques, Life cycle cost for technology selection: A case study in the manufacturing of injection moulds. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 128 (2010) 368-378.
V.B. Kreng, C.Y. Wu and I.C. Wang, Strategic justification of advanced manufacturing technology using an extended AHP model. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 52 (2011) 1103-1113.
S. Ghazinoory, M. Daneshmand-Mehr and A. Azadegan, Technology selection: Application of the PROMETHEE in determining preferences-A real case of nanotechnology in Iran. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 64 (2013) 884-897.
B. Oztaysi, A decision model for information technology selection using AHP integrated TOPSIS-Grey: The case of content management systems. Knowl.-Based Syst. 70 (2014) 44-54.
J. Ren and M. Lutzen, Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method for technology selection for emissions reduction from shipping under uncertainties. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 40 (2015) 43-60.
T.R. Sexton, R.H. Silkman and A.J. Hogan, Data envelopment analysis: Critique and extensions. In: Measuring Efficiency: An Assessment of Data Envelopment Analysis, edited by R.H. Silkman. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA (1986) 73-105.
J.R. Doyle and R.H. Green, Cross-evaluation in DEA: Improving discrimination among DMUs. INFOR 33 (1995) 205-222.
R.H. Green, J.R. Doyle and W.D. Cook, Preference voting and project ranking using DEA and cross-evaluation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 90 (1996) 461-472.
R.C. Baker and S. Talluri, A closer look at the use of data envelopment analysis for technology selection. Comput. Ind. Eng. 32 (1997) 101-108.
J. Shang and T. Sueyoshi, A unified framework for the selection of flexible manufacturing system. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 85 (1995) 297-315.
S. Talluri and K.P. Yoon, A cone-ratio DEA approach for AMT justification. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 66 (2000) 119-129.
T.R. Anderson, K.B. Hollingsworth and L.B. Inman, The fixed weighting nature of a cross-evaluation model. J. Prod. Anal. 18 (2002) 249-255.
S. Sun, Assessing computer numerical control machines using data envelopment analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 40 (2002) 2011-2039.
T. Ertay and D. Ruman, Data envelopment analysis based decision model for optimal operator allocation in CMS. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 164 (2005) 800-810.
L. Liang, J. Wu, W.D. Cook and J. Zhu, Alternative secondary goals in DEA cross efficiency evaluation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 113 (2008) 1025-1030.
L. Liang, J. Wu, W.D. Cook and J. Zhu, The DEA game cross-efficiency model and its Nash equilibrium. Oper. Res. 56 (2008) 1278-1288.
J. Wu, L. Liang and Y. Chen, DEA game cross-efficiency approach to Olympic rankings. Omega 37 (2009) 909-918.
J. Wu, L. Liang and F. Yang, Determination of weights for the ultimate cross efficiency using Shapley value in cooperative game. Expert Syst. App. 36 (2009) 872-876.
J. Wu, J. Sun, Y. Zha and L. Liang, Ranking approach of cross-efficiency based on improved TOPSIS technique. J. Syst. Eng. Electron. 22 (2011) 604-608.
J. Wu, J. Chu, Q. Zhu, P. Yin and L. Liang, DEA cross-efficiency evaluation based on satisfaction degree: An application to technology selection. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54 (2016) 5990-6007.
Y.M. Wang and K.S. Chin, Some alternative models for DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 128 (2010) 332-338.
G.R. Jahanshahloo, F. Hosseinzadeh Lofti, Y. Yafari and R. Maddahi, Selecting symmetric weights as a secondary goal in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. Appl. Math. Model. 35 (2011) 544-549.
I. Contreras, Optimizing the rank position of the DMU as secondary goal in DEA cross-evaluation. Appl. Math. Model. 36 (2012) 2642-2648.
L. Liang, J. Wu, W.D. Cook and J. Zhu, The DEA game cross-efficiency model and its Nash equilibrium. Oper. Res. 56 (2008) 1278-1288.
S. Lim, Minimax and maximin formulations of cross-efficiency in DEA. Comput. Ind. Eng. 62 (2012) 726-731.
F. Macro, S. Fabio, C. Nicola and P. Roberto, Using a DEA-cross efficiency approach in public procurement tenders. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 218 (2012) 523-529.
R. Maddahi, G.R. Jahanshahloo, F. Hosseinzadeh Lofti and A. Ebrahimnejad, Optimising proportional weights as a secondary goal in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. Int. J. Oper. Res. 19 (2014) 234-245.
W.D. Cook and J. Zhu, DEA Cobb-Douglas frontier and cross-efficiency. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 65 (2014) 265-268.
J. Du, W.D. Cook, L. Liang and J. Zhu, Fixed cost and resource allocation based on DEA cross-efficiency. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 235 (2014) 206-214.
S. Lim, K.W. Oh and J. Zhu, Use of DEA cross-efficiency evaluation in portfolio selection: An application to Korean stock market. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 236 (2014) 361-368.
Q. Cui and Y. Li, Evaluating energy efficiency for airlines: An application of VFB-DEA. J. Air Transp. Manage. 44 (2015) 34-41.
P.A. Samuelson, The fundamental singularity theorem for non-joint production. Int. Econ. Rev. 7 (1966) 34-41.
L.J. Lau, Profit functions of technologies with multiple inputs and outputs. Rev. Econ. Stat. 54 (1972) 281-289.
R.E. Hall, The specification of technology with several kinds of output. J. Political Econ. 81 (1973) 878-892.
U. Kohli, Non-joint technologies. Rev. Econ. Stud. 50 (1983) 209-219.
U. Kohli, Technology and public goods. J. Public Econ. 26 (1985) 379-400.
P. van den Heuvel, Nonjoint production and the cost function: Some refinements. J. Econ. 46 (1986) 283-297.
C. Fernandez, G. Koop and M. Steel, A Bayesian analysis of multiple-output production frontiers. J. Econ. 98 (2000) 47-79.
C. Fernandez, G. Koop and M. Steel, Multiple-output production with undesirable outputs: An application to nitrogen surplus in agriculture. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 97 (2002) 432-442.
C. Fernandez, G. Koop and M. Steel, Alternative efficiency measures for multiple-output production. J. Econ. 126 (2005) 411-444.
J.T.A.S. Ferreira and M. Steel, Model comparison of coordinate-free multivariate skewed distributions with an application to stochastic frontiers. J. Econ. 137 (2007) 641-673.
L. Cherchye, B. De Rock, B. Dierynck, F. Roodhooft and J. Sabbe, Opening the black box of efficiency measurement: Input allocation in multi-output settings. Oper. Res. 61 (2013) 1148-1165.
L. Cherchye, B. De Rock and B. Walheer, Multi-output efficiency with good and bad outputs. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 240 (2015) 872-881.
L. Cherchye, B. De Rock and B. Walheer, Multi-output profit efficiency and directional distance functions. Omega 61 (2016) 100-109.
B. Walheer, A multi-sector nonparametric production-frontier analysis of the economic growth and the convergence of the European countries. Pac. Econ. Rev. 21 (2016) 498-524.
B. Walheer, Growth and convergence of the OECD countries: A multi-sector production-frontier approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 252 (2016) 665-675.
B. Walheer, Economic growth and greenhouse gases in Europe: A non-radial multi-sector nonparametric production-frontier analysis. Energy Economics 74 (2018) 51-62.
B. Walheer, Cost Malmquist productivity index: An output-specific approach for group comparison. J. Prod. Anal. 49 (2018) 79-94.
B. Walheer, Disaggregation of the Cost Malmquist productivity index with joint and output-specific inputs. Omega 75 (2018) 1-12.
B. Walheer, Scale efficiency for multi-output cost minimizing producers: The case of the US electricity plants. Energy Econ. 70 (2018) 26-36.
B. Walheer and L. Zhang, Profit Luenberger and Malmquist-Luenberger indexes for multi-activity decision making units: The case of the star-rated hotel industry in China. Tourism Management 69 (2020) 1-11.
J. Salerian and C. Chan, Restricting multiple-output multiple-input DEA models by disaggregating the output-input vector. J. Prod. Anal. 24 (2005) 5-29.
O. Despic, M. Despic and J. Paradi, DEA-R: Ratio-based comparative efficiency model, its mathematical relation to DEA and its use in applications. J. Prod. Anal. 28 (2007) 33-44.
L. Cherchye, B. De Rock and F. Vermeulen, Cost-efficient production behavior under economies of scope: A nonparametric methodology. Oper. Res. 56 (2008) 204-221.
R. Färe and S. Grosskopf, Network DEA. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 34 (2000) 35-49.
R. Färe, S. Grosskopf and G. Whittaker, Network DEA. In: Modeling Data Irregularities and Structural Complexities in Data Envelopment Analysis, edited by J. Zhu and W. Cook. Springer (2007).
K. Tone and M. Tsutsui, Network DEA: A slacks-based measure approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 197 (2009) 243-252.
B. Walheer, Malmquist productivity index for multi-output producers: An application to electricity generation plants. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 65 (2018) 76-88.
J.E. Beasley, Allocating fixed costs and resources via data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 147 (2003) 198-216.
Y.J. Li, F. Yang, L. Liang and Z.S. Hua, Allocating the fixed cost as a complement of other cost inputs: A DEA approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 197 (2009) 389-401.
M.-M. Yu, C.-C. Chern and B. Hsiao, Human resource rightsizing using centralized data envelopment analysis: Evidence from Taiwans airports. Omega 41 (2013) 119-130.
V.V. Podinovski and T. Bouzdine-Chameeva, Solving DEA models in a single optimization stage: Can the non-Archimedean infinitesimal be replaced by a small finite epsilon? Eur. J. Oper. Res. 257 (2017) 412-419.
G. Appa, On the uniqueness of solutions to linear programs. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 53 (2002) 1127-1132.
M. Oral, G.R. Amin and A. Oukil, Cross-efficiency in DEA: A maximum resonated appreciative model. Measurement 63 (2015) 159-167.
R. Färe and V. Zelenyuk, Aggregation of cost efficiency: Indicators and indexes across firms. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 146 (2003) 615-620.
V. Zelenyuk, A scale elasticity measure for directional distance function and its dual: Theory and DEA estimation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 228 (2006) 592-600.
V. Zelenyuk, Aggregation of scale efficiency. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 240 (2016) 269-277.
A. Mayer and V. Zelenyuk, Aggregation of Malmquist productivity indexes allowing for reallocation of resources. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 238 (2014) 774-785.
R. Färe and G. Karagiannis, The denominator rule for share-weighting aggregation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 260 (2017) 1175-1180.
B. Walheer, Aggregation of metafrontier technology gap ratios: The case of European sectors in 1995-2015. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 269 (2018) 1013-1026.
B. Walheer, Scale, congestion, and technical efficiency of European countries: A sector-based nonparametric approach. Empir. Econ. 56 (2019) 2025-2078.
R. Allen, A.D. Athanassopoulos, R.G. Dyson and E. Thanassoulis, Weight restrictions and value judgements in DEA: Evolution, development and future directions. Ann. Oper. Res. 45 (1997) 2313-2316.
T. Kuosmanen, L. Cherchye and T. Sipilainen, The law of one price in data envelopment analysis: Restricting weight flexibility across firms. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 170 (2006) 735-757.
F. Pedraja-Chaparro, J. Salinas-Jimenez and P. Smith, On the role of weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis. J. Prod. Anal. 8 (1997) 215-230.
P. Karande, E. Zavadskas and S. Chakraborty, A study on the ranking performance of some MCDM methods for industrial robot selection problems. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput. 7 (2016) 399-422.
S. Mondal and S. Chakraborty, A solution to robot selection problems using data envelopment analysis. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput. 4 (2013) 355-372.
N. Danila, Strategic evaluation and selection of R&D projects. R&D Manage. 19 (1989) 47-62.
R.L. Schmidt and J.R. Freeland, Recent progress in modeling R&D project-selection processes. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 39 (1992) 189-201.
A.D. Henriksen and A.J. Traynor, A practical R&D project-selection scoring tool. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 46 (1999) 158-170.
L.M. Meade and A. Presley, R&D project selection using the analytic network process. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 49 (2002) 59-66.
M. Braglia and A. Petroni, Evaluating and selecting investments in industrial robots. Int. J. Prod. Res. 37 (1999) 4157-4178.
M. Oral, O. Kettani and P. Lang, A methodology for collective evaluation and selection of industrial R&D projects. Manage. sci. 37 (1991) 871-885.
J. Wu, J. Chu, J. Sun and Q. Zhu, DEA cross-efficiency evaluation based on Pareto improvement. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 248 (2016) 571-579.
Similar publications
Sorry the service is unavailable at the moment. Please try again later.
This website uses cookies to improve user experience. Read more
Save & Close
Accept all
Decline all
Show detailsHide details
Cookie declaration
About cookies
Strictly necessary
Performance
Strictly necessary cookies allow core website functionality such as user login and account management. The website cannot be used properly without strictly necessary cookies.
This cookie is used by Cookie-Script.com service to remember visitor cookie consent preferences. It is necessary for Cookie-Script.com cookie banner to work properly.
Performance cookies are used to see how visitors use the website, eg. analytics cookies. Those cookies cannot be used to directly identify a certain visitor.
Used to store the attribution information, the referrer initially used to visit the website
Cookies are small text files that are placed on your computer by websites that you visit. Websites use cookies to help users navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. Cookies that are required for the website to operate properly are allowed to be set without your permission. All other cookies need to be approved before they can be set in the browser.
You can change your consent to cookie usage at any time on our Privacy Policy page.